Skip to comments.
High Court Rules in Favor of Gun Rights
The Wall Street Journal ^
| 06-28-10
| NATHAN KOPPEL
Posted on 06/28/2010 8:50:07 AM PDT by GOP_Lady
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
1
posted on
06/28/2010 8:50:09 AM PDT
by
GOP_Lady
To: 506Lake; AdvisorB; afraidfortherepublic; antivenom; angry elephant; Bernard; Blonde; ...
|
To be added or removed from the
"The Wall Street Journal" Ping List,
FReepmail GOP_Lady. |
2
posted on
06/28/2010 8:50:50 AM PDT
by
GOP_Lady
To: GOP_Lady
Wonderful ruling. Disturbing that it is only 5-4.
3
posted on
06/28/2010 8:50:51 AM PDT
by
Persevero
(The Second American Revolution, “THE GREAT FLUSH”, starts Nov. 2, 2010)
To: GOP_Lady
Our Communists Party will make sure that they pass an bill or Executive Order banning guns and will ignore the Supreme Court.
To: Persevero
I’m not surprised that it was 5-4.
Guns are the visceral dividing issue between those that
think the state should make all the decisions
and those that believe the individual should make his own decisions.
Read “Why did it have to be guns” available on the internet.
5
posted on
06/28/2010 8:52:47 AM PDT
by
MrB
(The difference between a (de)humanist and a Satanist is that the latter knows who he's working for.)
To: GOP_Lady
Hooray and thanks for the ping!
6
posted on
06/28/2010 8:54:52 AM PDT
by
Salvation
("With God all things are possible." Matthew 19:26)
To: Persevero
Wonderful ruling. Disturbing that it is only 5-4.I agree...it's disturbing that 4 justices voted against the constitution when they are supposed to make rulings in line with the constitution.
7
posted on
06/28/2010 8:55:48 AM PDT
by
highlander_UW
(Education is too important to leave in the hands of the government.)
To: Persevero
Disturbing that it is only 5-4. We'll take it. The "other" side has been braying for decades, at least, that the second amendment is not binding on the states. Now it is. We should run rampant, overturning restrictive gun laws everywhere. California, New York City.
Open carry, of anything, should become lawful throughout the land. Concealed is a bit different, but a state should only be able to regulate one or other, open or concealed, not both.
8
posted on
06/28/2010 8:56:46 AM PDT
by
El Gato
("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
To: Logical me
Our Communists Party will make sure that they pass an bill or Executive Order banning guns and will ignore the Supreme Court. Fine, see tag line.
9
posted on
06/28/2010 8:58:41 AM PDT
by
El Gato
("The second amendment is the reset button of the US constitution"-Doug McKay)
To: GOP_Lady
If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of hand-guns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials.Made me smile.
10
posted on
06/28/2010 9:00:29 AM PDT
by
Stentor
To: GOP_Lady
In other developments, the Supreme Court settled the dispute that the sun “DOES in fact rise in the East.”
Good news from 5 of the Supremes...
To: GOP_Lady
Daley is pissed now that innocent people can defend themselves...
To: GOP_Lady
"[N]othing in 18th-, 19th-, 20th-, or 21st-century history shows a consensus that the right to private armed self-defense…is 'deeply rooted in this nation's history or tradition' or is otherwise 'fundamental,' " Justice Breyer wrote. I would hope that purposely using false statements and false legal premises in the making of US court rulings is an impeachable offense, even if Breyer's stupid, faggot, loser faction lost anyway.
13
posted on
06/28/2010 9:11:02 AM PDT
by
sig226
(Mourn this day, the death of a great republic. March 21, 2010)
To: highlander_UW
This shows the SUPER divide in this country. Liberals on the court are mocking our history, our fundamentals and rights based on opposition to what we were and are. This will end in a war with these very guns we speak of...
To: harpseal; TexasCowboy; nunya bidness; AAABEST; Travis McGee; Squantos; wku man; SLB; ...
15
posted on
06/28/2010 9:12:56 AM PDT
by
Joe Brower
(Sheep have three speeds: "graze", "stampede" and "cower".)
To: Stentor
If, as petitioners believe, their safety and the safety of other law-abiding members of the community would be enhanced by the possession of hand-guns in the home for self-defense, then the Second Amendment right protects the rights of minorities and other residents of high-crime areas whose needs are not being met by elected public officials. Did the Court really say this? If so, this struct me as possibly quite dangerous: If "needs ARE being met by elected public officials", the left will take this as permission to restrict such "enhancements" (private ownership).
I have not yet read the decision. So, I do not know how extensive the protection that it affords the 2nd Amendment against State infringement.
To: sig226
I would hope that purposely using false statements and false legal premises in the making of US court rulings is an impeachable offense We wish, but the majority opinion did show Bryer's statement for the lie that it is.
To: Stentor
LOL! Yeah, I saw that too. In your face, Mayor.
He already has a plan to get around it. No one is surprised.
To: GOP_Lady
This time! Kagan will be the vote to make it 5 - 5, then what?
19
posted on
06/28/2010 9:25:05 AM PDT
by
Comanche
To: GOP_Lady
WoooooooooooHoooooooooooo!
This is a great day for America. A great day for Freedom.
This is going to be the best Fourth of July EVER!
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-30 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson
